CSID Journal of Infrastructure Development, 4(1): 63-82 (2021) ISSN 2407-4438
MAJOR BARRIERS ASSESSMENT OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION APPLICATION IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS DELIVERY
William Nwaki1*, Emmanuel Eze2, Imoleayo Awodele2
1Building Technology Department, Delta State Polytechnic, Ozoro, Nigeria
2Quantity Surveying Department, Federal University of Technology,Owerri, Imo state, Nigeria
(Received: February 2021 / Revised: April 2021 / Accepted: April 2021)
ABSTRACT
The construction sector is facing challenges of meeting client’s value and end-user satisfaction, and this situation is worsened by customers’ dynamic demands for quality and speedy delivery without loss of value. Lean concept has been advocated to be a panacea to poor project performance, and it, however, has a high awareness level but with little implementation among construction organizations especially in developing countries including Nigeria. The purpose of this study is to assess the major barriers to lean construction application on construction project delivery, to suggest possible measures for overcoming them. A well-structured questionnaire was used to gather data from construction professionals in the south-south, Nigeria using electronic means and snowball sampling technique. Data gathered were analyzed using frequency, percentage and factor analysis. It was found that the major cluster of barriers to lean implementation are technology and knowledge barrier, leadership and management barrier, culture and complexity barrier, engagement and relationship barriers, financial barriers, and communication barriers. It was recommended that adequate management and leadership support is needed for entrenching lean construction techniques into the culture of operations of construction organisations.
Keywords: Lean construction; construction projects; barriers, lean techniques, Nigeria
1. INTRODUCTION
Evidence in literature has shown how critical the construction industry is on national economic growth and development. According to Nwaki and Eze (2020), the impacts of the construction industry are in the form of infrastructure and building housing provisions, wealth creation, generation of employment, and national income constructions. The construction industry is critical to economic growth of both developed and developing nation (J. G. Sarhan et al., 2017;
Tezel et al., 2018). The sector is, however, facing challenges of meeting client’s value and end- user satisfaction, as it is being limited in its contribution to sustainability issue (Babalola et al., 2018). The challenge is worsened by the increasing competitive pressure on construction enterprises; a resultant of customers' dynamic demands for quality and speedy delivery without loss of value (Yadav et al., 2018).
*Corresponding author’s email: [email protected], Tel. +234 803 7188 028.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32783/csid-jid.v4i1.206
64 Major Barriers Assessment of Lean Construction Application in Construction Projects Delivery
There are non-value-adding activities that characterized construction project delivery. These have culminated into problems such as overruns in time and cost, poor quality and materials waste, safety issues, efficiency problems, and insufficient clients’ satisfaction (Sols, 2018). A suitable way for minimizing these problems and maximizing values while removing non-value-adding events during building production is by ‘producing it lean’. The lean concept is common in the manufacturing sector, and a lot of success has been recorded. Li et al. (2019) posit that since there is a lot of similarity and commonality existing between construction and manufacturing, lean thinking was introduced to solve problems related to non-value-adding activities.
In spite of the enormous benefits such as cost and time savings, better safety performance records, reduction of errors and rework, improved quality and waste reduction, better predictability of work, improved productivity, enhanced inventory management, and improved client satisfaction (Farrar et al., 2004; Ko, 2010; Mohan & Iyer, 2005; Salem et al., 2006), recorded by leading economies in lean construction (LC) practices adoption, the concept is still at the development stage. Countries like the USA, Brazil, the UK, Chile, Denmark, South Korea, Peru, Ecuador, Finland, Venezuela, Australia, and Singapore; are the leading economics for LC adoption (Ballard & Howell, 2003; Johansen & Walter, 2007; Jørgensen & Emmitt, 2008). Lean construction is a novel approach and it is still growing rapidly in recent years (Monyane et al., 2020; Shang & Sui Pheng, 2014). This has contributed to the slow adoption and widespread interpretation and a missing rational philosophy (Alves et al., 2012; Common et al., 2000;
Jørgensen & Emmitt, 2008). Albalkhy and Sweis (2020) posit that LC is either not adequately known or fully welcomed in many developed and developing economies.
In the extant literature, studies on the challenges and limiting factors to lean implementation in many countries still exist, particularly the low adoption level of lean in construction. (Ayalew et al., 2016; A. M. Bashir et al., 2015; Cano et al., 2015; Johansen & Walter, 2007; Olamilokun, 2015; S. Sarhan & Fox, 2013; Shang & Sui Pheng, 2014). There is, however, limited literature on the factors hindering LC practices implementation in the construction industry of Nigeria (Sholanke et al., 2019). Furthermore, in Nigeria, the lean concept is still not implemented on a full scale, and maximizing the full benefits of lean has remained a mirage. Construction organizations are reluctant to fully implement LC techniques which have proved to be an innovative solution to construction projects' performance problems (Nwaki & Eze, 2020).
Srinivasan et al. (2020) suggested a study that will identify the factors affecting lean principles implementation on construction projects. It is based on this that this study assessed the major barriers to LC application on construction projects delivery, to suggest possible measures for overcoming them. Nwaki and Eze (2020) claimed that LC is a panacea for poor construction project performance; this is owing to its cost-related benefits, value and relationship benefits, environmental benefits, quality improvement benefits, motivation, and productivity benefits, profitability and market benefits, time and workflow benefits, waste reduction benefits, and HS and rework reduction benefits. It is only through a full-scale adoption of the lean concepts that these benefits can be achieved.
This study implies that it will increase the knowledge of construction-based experts on the critical barriers to lean concepts and enable them to develop sustainable strategies for overcoming them.
This study further advance the knowledge of construction industry participants and serve as a caution for possible drawbacks when lean have gained complete acceptance and implementation in the country. The future driving forces for LC implementation are better organized from knowledge gained from a proper understanding of the key barriers to LC. It also adds to the existing literature on LC in developing countries of the world. The lean techniques eliminate wastes in the use of labor, time and ensure the efficiency of operations in the use of materials for project delivery. Lean shortens the time of doing work, and efficient working saves money and
Nwaki et al. 65 energy on the project. LC application on construction projects means more money and less waste.
Every stakeholder (clients, contractors, consultants, and others) are expected to feel the impact.
Construction organizations would benefit from LC because it helps to reduced defects and errors, avoid over-production, eliminate waiting time, eliminate incorrect resource selection and poor use of knowledge, unnecessary transport waste, avoid excess inventory, avoid unnecessary motions, and avoid gold-plating of products. Less waste means that project could be delivered on budget and within an acceptable timeframe and meeting the functional requirements. Thus, delivering value to the client and securing their satisfaction.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Lean Concept in Construction Industry
What is today known as LC and practiced in the construction industry, have its origin in the manufacturing sectors, especially from Toyota production system (Bajjou & Chafi, 2018; J. G.
Sarhan et al., 2017). The eventual application of the lean philosophy in construction was premised on the successes the manufacturing sector recorded from the adoption of the lean principle and the benefits gained. Koskela (1992) was one of the pioneer authors who tried to introduce lean thinking in the construction industry. The applicability of what was called “the new production philosophy” is contained in the Stanford report produced by the author. According to Omotayo and Kulatunga (2014), after Toyota motors first introduced the lean concept to manufacturing, it has successfully been applied in the construction industry globally.
LC is a technique that focused on designing the production systems for material and time wastes minimization and value maximization (L Koskela et al., 2002). This definition of lean is the same as the main philosophy of lean in the manufacturing sector. Waste minimization and value maximization is the main philosophy of lean in the manufacturing. Scherrer-Rathje et al. (2009) state that the lean concept is a management philosophical tool aimed at reducing waste from the entire production value chain. Its application goes beyond production organizations but also along with supply chain networks. According to Hall (2019), LC is a philosophy adopted by construction organizations for a specific project being undertaken. The construction team applies lean practices and technologies to decrease time, costs, materials, and efforts, especially on a specific project at hand. According to Manrodt et al. (2008), LC adopts a systematic approach for enhancing value for clients by identifying and eliminating wastes through iteration of processes for continuous improvement in the pursuit of excellence.
Flowing from the aforementioned, LC is aimed at ensuring that the management of construction projects focuses on the minimization of waste and maximization of values for clients and project success.
2.2. Adoption of Lean Construction
In the Brazilian construction industry, Comelli et al. (2019) stated that adhesion to other process improvements by organizations made it difficult for LC to be implemented. Critical benefits assessment and evaluation of investment of lean is a vital and required exercise that must be done before LC principles are adopted (Campos et al., 2012). Furthermore, these efforts are needed for evaluating the investment and benefits that failed to be interpreted.
In Germany, Johansen and Walter (2007) reported that lean techniques awareness is low. Bashir et al. (2010) and Mossman (2009) in the UK observed that the implementation of lean construction practices is still limited. This situation according to Sarhan and Fox (2013) is attributed to cultural and structural barriers. Mahashabde (2016) reported that in the USA and India, the actual implementation of lean methods in construction projects has led to appreciable successes in the reduction of waste and maximization of profit. Mahashabde (2016) further found
66 Major Barriers Assessment of Lean Construction Application in Construction Projects Delivery that, although the lean implementation is high, the participants were not aware that they were using lean techniques to minimize waste and maximize profit.
In the Moroccan construction industry, Bajjou and Chafi (2018) found that the awareness of LC among construction experts is high but the adoption level is low. In the work of Wandahl (2014), it was found that 75% (i.e. 3 out of 4) of the practitioners are ignorant of LC practices. This poor awareness of the lean concept was attributed to the absence of knowledge, education, and communication issues. The level of awareness of the LC techniques is also found low among construction practitioners in Turkey and African countries (Ayalew et al., 2016; Tezel & Nielsen, 2013).
Babalola et al. (2018) found that although lean thinking awareness is growing, the adoption level remains comparatively low among construction companies. Similarly, Adegbembo et al. (2016) found that a larger proportion of the construction professionals are aware of LC techniques. 89%
of the Architects sampled in the study are familiar with LC techniques (Sholanke et al., 2019). It can be deduced from the foregoing that while the awareness level of LC is high, its adoption and implementation level is low, especially in developing countries due to certain barriers that limit its implementation among construction professionals and organizations.
2.3. Barriers to Lean Construction
In a single case study survey in Norway, Lodgaard et al. (2016) found that the barriers to lean implementation based on the relative percentage weighting are limited management commitment, limited leadership, lean not a daily focus, roles and responsibilities not defined, lack of motivation, chosen tools, and practices not according to best practices, chosen lean tools and practices not adding sufficient value, and lack of knowledge about lean (philosophy, principles, tools). In a related case study research among Iranian SMEs, (Moradlou & Perera, 2017), through an interview, classified the main barriers to lean implementation into four groups; the absence of top management support, financial capability, absence of employee’s skill and expertise, and organizational culture. Similarly, in the Iranian construction industry, Movaghar (2016) concluded that the most significant barriers hindering the implementation of LC in the developing countries are; lack of adequate lean awareness and understanding, culture and human attitudinal issues and, top management commitment.
In the UK, Bashir et al. (2010) carried out an in-depth analysis of barriers to LC implementation and categories the barriers into financial, educational, governmental, attitudinal, managerial, and technical barriers. In the UK, Sarhan and Fox (2013) reported that the cultural barrier is what characterized the LC implementation in the UK construction industry. Among these cultural barriers are the lack of adequate awareness and understanding, lack of management commitment, cultural and human attitudinal issues. Successful implementation of lean techniques depends on a strong lean culture supported by the management within the organization (S. Sarhan & Fox, 2013).
In the UK, the full-scale uptake of the lean concept appears to be sparse, and contracting organizations are faced with a lot of drawbacks in the implementation of lean practices. Bashir et al. (2015) found that the major factors responsible for the drawback in implementation of lean in the UK are; changing employees’ working culture, cost of implementation, lack of lean knowledge, long implementation time, complexity, lack of cooperation from employees, lack of incentives, lack of long term forecast and investment, low effort to learn, misconceptions about lean, and high expectations from management. Further analysis of these barriers to determine the nature showed that they are more related to human and technical issues. It was suggested that providing motivation such as staff training opportunities, provision of needed facilities, and
Nwaki et al. 67 incentives; are strategies management should adopt to overcome the barriers (A. M. Bashir et al., 2015).
In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian (KSA) construction industry, Sarhan et al. (2018) identified twenty-two (22) barriers to LC implementation and grouped them using principal component analysis (PCA) in descending order of prevalence. These barriers are traditional practices, client- related barriers, technological barriers, performance and knowledge–related barriers, and financial related barriers. Bayhan et al. (2019) carried out a study aimed at providing a set of key enablers and barriers to LC implementation. 27 enablers and barriers were identified and grouped into 7 major groups, which are financial, managerial, technical, workforce, culture, government, and communication. Based on the relative mean weight of the barriers, the major components among the key categories are lack of top management support, misperception about lean practices, lack of information sharing and integrated change control, stakeholder issues in communication, failure in operational excellence, inefficiency in resource planning, and lack of organizational communication.
Oguntona et al. (2019) assessed the perception of construction professionals in South Africa regarding LC practices, and found that the major barriers to lean are poor culture among project partners, lack of good policies, the complexity of LC process, poor organizational knowledge, and lack of understanding of LC practices. The study further found that the measure for implementing LC are the appointment of lean expert/consultant, education and training of stakeholders, motivation, and commitment of stakeholders, the establishment of policy and regulatory system, and introduction of certification and measurement standards. The study of Adegbembo et al. (2016), shows some LC barriers including lack of lean awareness and understanding, lack of exposure to the need to adopt the lean concept, lack of proper training, difficulty in understanding lean concepts, weak communication among clients, consultants, and contractors, waste accepted as inevitable, and inefficient use of quality standards. The study recommended more awareness campaigns and the need to expose the workers to lean concepts training.
Ahmed and Sobuz (2019) identified and prioritized the challenges of LC implementation in the Bangladeshi construction industry and found that the highest-ranking challenges are the lack of awareness about LC, lack of skills, training, and lean techniques, unwillingness to change the existing culture, lack of management commitment, fragmented and cyclic nature of the construction project and unavailing communication between all project participants. It was recommended that more effort and focus should towards overcoming barriers such as; traditional culture and practice, stakeholder’s communication and relationship, quality materials and methods, technological and performance, and knowledge barriers. Similarly, a separate study by Ahmed et al. (2020) in Bangladeshi, found that the major challenges to LC are lack of awareness and skill, poor management, traditional culture and attitude of employees, inadequate resources and equipment, and non-use of modern techniques and technologies.
In the south African construction industry, Oke et al. (2021) found that the major challenges facing the implementation of LC practices are consist of poor culture among project partners, lack of good policies, the complexity of LC process, poor organizational knowledge, lack of understanding of lean construction. The study concluded that LC revolves around attitudes, and recommended for a complete attitudinal change from the key construction participants in the day- to-day activities of LC practices. In a similar but different study, Allu and Emuze (2018) identified inadequate knowledge, lack of proactive improvement actions, and limited lean awareness as the major implementation barriers to LC in South Africa. In the UAE, Kanafani (2015) found that the two major themes of barriers to LC Implementation are lack of management commitment and lack of stakeholders’ commitment. the sub-themes under these major themes
68 Major Barriers Assessment of Lean Construction Application in Construction Projects Delivery are; lack of management commitment (absence of a qualified project management team, inefficiency in the procurement process, and lack of training, education & development) and lack of stakeholders commitment (late involvement in the supply chain, lack of client & consultant engagement in LC, and lack of proper risk assessment & management).
Forty-one (41) major barriers to LC were selected from the reviewed literature and summarised in table 1.
3. METHODS
This study adopted a questionnaire survey approach of construction professionals in the south- south region of Nigeria. The questionnaire is suitable for covering a large area, and it is economical and fast in data collection. The target participants were architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, and builders; who have at least 5 years of working experience in the industry and are engaged in active construction sites at the time of this study. Furthermore, they were required to have knowledge of LC techniques. These criteria were to ensure unbiased and quality data are gathered from the participants. The south-south region is made of six states (Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa state, Cross River, Delta, Edo, and Rivers states), and the population of the professionals in these states was obtained from the previous study (Otali et al., 2020), of 1252. This sample population is equivalent to 197 sample sizes from Krejcie and Morgan (1970) sample size determination table.
The questionnaire has two sections and the first section collected data on the survey participants’
basic information. The second section gathered data on the barriers to LC techniques application on construction project delivery. Based on the level of importance of the 41 selected barriers from the literature review, the participants were required to rate the barriers on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = lowest scale, 5= highest scale). The procedure for data collection was through the use of snowball sampling techniques and personal delivery from the researchers and by email. The snowball sampling technique is dependent on referrals and it can increase the sample size (Atkinson R & J, 2001; Heckathorn, 2011). According to Nwaki and Eze (2020), the electronic means of questionnaire survey is environmentally friendly, reduces the volume of hardcopy questionnaires.
At the end of survey participants’ sampling, a total of 161 useable responses were received and these represent a responses rate of 81.73%. The response rate of 81.73% is high because follow- up calls were put across to the participants over the 14 weeks duration of the study. The breakdown of the 161 (81.73%) gathered responses by state are (Akwa Ibom=16(9.94%), Bayelsa state=14(8.7%), Cross river=27(16.77%), Delta=39(24.22%), Edo=29(18.01%), and River state
= 36(22.36%).
69 Nwaki et al.
Table 1 Summary of identified Barriers to lean construction S/NBarriers to leanSource(s) 1 Absence of management commitment and support Bayhan et al. (2019); Ahmed and Sobuz (2019); Kanafani (2015); Sarhan et al. (2018); Movaghar (2016); Adegbembo et al. (2016); Abdullah et al. (2009);Sarhan and Fox (2013);Moradlou and Perera (2017) 2 Poor leadership and management skills Bayhan et al. (2019); Ahmed et al. (2020); Sarhan et al. (2018); Abdullah et al. (2009); Bashir et al. (2010); Lodgaard et al. (2016) 3 Inefficient use of quality materials Adegbembo et al. (2016) 4 Roles and responsibilities not definedSarhan et al. (2018); Lodgaard et al. (2016) 5 Lack of motivation and incentivesBashir et al.(2015);Lodgaard et al. (2016) 6 Chosen tools and practices not according to best practicesLodgaard et al. (2016) 7 Chosen lean tools and practices not adding sufficient valueLodgaard et al. (2016) 8 Lack of knowledge about lean (philosophy, principles, tools)Oke et al. (2021); Adegbembo et al. (2016); Sarhan et al. (2018); Bashir et al. (2015); Abdullah et al. (2009); Bashir et al. (2010); Lodgaard et al. (2016) 9 Absence of employee’s skill and expertise Ahmed et al. (2020); Moradlou and Perera (2017) 10Financial capability and implementation costBayhan et al. (2019); Bashir et al. (2010); Moradlou and Perera (2017) 11Lack of adequate Lean awareness and understanding
Oguntona et al. (2019); Oke et al. (2021); Ahmed and Sobuz (2019); Ahmed et al. (2020); Allu and Emuze (2018); Adegbembo et al. (2016); Sarhan et al. (2018); Bashir et al. (2015); Abdullah et al. (2009); Sarhan and Fox (2013); Bashir et al. (2010); Movaghar (2016) 12Employees attitude and organizational culture Ahmed et al. (2020); Bashir et al. (2015) 13Limited knowledge of the lean concept Adegbembo et al. (2016); Oguntona et al. (2019) 14Culture and human attitudinal issues Bashir et al. (2015); Bayhan et al. (2019); Oguntona et al. (2019); Oke et al. (2021); Sarhan and Fox (2013); Movaghar (2016), Moradlou and Perera (2017) 15Lack of cooperation from employees Bashir et al. (2015) 16Long time required to implement lean practices Adegbembo et al. (2016); Abdullah et al. (2009); Bashir et al. (2015) 17The complexity of the construction industry Bashir et al. (2015) 18Delays in decision making Adegbembo et al. (2016); Sarhan et al. (2018) 19Misperception about Lean practices Bashir et al.(2015);Bayhan et al. (2019) 20Poor communication among stakeholders Bayhan et al. (2019); Sarhan et al. (2018); Ahmed and Sobuz (2019); Adegbembo et al. (2016) 21Lack of information sharing and integrated change controlBayhan et al. (2019); Adegbembo et al. (2016)
Major Barriers Assessment of Lean Construction Application in Construction Projects Delivery 70
S/NBarriers to leanSource(s) 22Poor planning of resourcesBayhan et al. (2019) 23Failure in operational excellence Bayhan et al. (2019) 24Poor knowledge of lean benefits and valueSarhan et al. (2018); Abdullah et al. (2009); Bashir et al. (2010) 25Weak connection between clients, consultants and contractors Abdullah et al. (2009) 26Lack of good policies Oke et al. (2021); Oguntona et al. (2019) 27Complexity of lean construction process Oguntona et al. (2019); Oke et al. (2021); Bashir et al. (2015) 28Lack of adequate lean skills, training and educationAhmed and Sobuz (2019); Bashir et al. (2010); Kanafani (2015); Sarhan et al. (2018); Adegbembo et al. (2016); Abdullah et al. (2009) 29Waste accepted as inevitableAdegbembo et al. (2016) 30Resistance, unwillingness to change the existing culture Ahmed and Sobuz (2019); Bayhan et al. (2019); Moradlou and Perera (2017) 31Insufficient resources and equipment Ahmed et al. (2020) 32Non-use of modern techniques and technologies Ahmed et al. (2020); Bashir et al. (2010); Sarhan et al. (2018) 33Reactive and lack of proactive improvement actionsAllu and Emuze (2018) 34Absence of a qualified project management teamKanafani (2015) 35Inefficiency in the procurement process Kanafani (2015) 36Late involvement in the supply chainKanafani (2015) 37Improper risk assessment and managementKanafani (2015) 38Lack of client and consultant engagement in lean construction Kanafani (2015); Adegbembo et al. (2016) 39The influence of traditional management practices Sarhan et al. (2018) 40Fragmented nature of the industry Ahmed and Sobuz (2019); Adegbembo et al. (2016) 41Lack of long term relationship with suppliers Adegbembo et al. (2016); Sarhan et al. (2018); Abdullah et al. (2009)
Nwaki et al. 71 The collected data were subjected to a reliability test using the Cronbach alpha test. An alpha value of 0.957 was obtained for the assessed variables. This shows a very high level of reliability of the research instrument. Frequencies and percentages were used to analyze the basic background information of the respondents. Factor analysis (FA) was used to analyze the data gathered on the barriers to LC application on construction projects. The FA used principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation as the method of data extraction. Factors analysis was aimed at reducing the variables into a cluster of a manageable and cohesive proportion of different construct. The entire methodological flow is represented in Figure 1.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Basic Information of Respondents
The analysis of the basic information of the respondents shows that the survey participants from the private organizations are more by 57.14%, and they are followed by those from the public organizations by 42.86%. By profession, a good number of the participants are Engineers (31.68%), followed by Architects (30.43%), then Quantity Surveyors (24.22%), and lastly, Builders (13.66%). This shows a good mix of the key professionals’ employees of construction organizations. The average working experience of the participants is 13.48 years and this fell within the modal and median class of range 11-15years. With 36.02% and 29.81% having bachelor degree (BSc./B.Tech) and Master’s degree (MSc./M.Tech.) respectively as their highest academic qualifications, shows that they are educationally qualified to make a meaningful contribution to the subject of this study. Finally, in terms of professional members, 91.30% of the respondents are corporate members of their various professional bodies, and only 8.7% are probationers of their professional bodies. This indicates that highly professional and experienced participants took part in this survey.
4.2. Major Barriers to Lean Construction
Prior to carrying out the factor analysis, the factorability and adequacy of the collected data for the analysis were done. This was achieved regarding the sample size, the number of variables, commonalities, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy, and Bartlett’s test
Figure 1 Methodology flow chart Review of literature
&
Development of Questionnaire
Sampling
Reliability Test Using Cronbach
alpha
Descriptive analysis Frequency &
Percentages test
Factor Analysis (FA) FA suitability checks: Communalities, Kaiser– Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett test of sphericity
FA proper: PCA with varimax rotation
72 Major Barriers Assessment of Lean Construction Application in Construction Projects Delivery of sphericity. With regards to the number of variables and sample size; the 41 barriers selected from the literature are adequate and this is based on the understanding that there is yet to be an agreement regarding what number of variables is suitable for factor analysis. Also, the sample size of 161 is adequate for factor analysis and this is premised on the suggestions of (Hair et al., 2010; Pallant, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Table 2 KMO and Bartlett's Test for Lean Construction Barriers Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0.869 Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-
Square 5006.914
df 820
Sig. 0.0000
The maximum and minimum communalities values for the variables are 0.832 and 0.501 respectively and with an average of 0.694. The average communality is above 0.60, and the sample size becomes meaningless in determining sample size adequacy for FA (Pallant, 2007;
Taherdoost et al., 2014). Furthermore, variables with a communalities figure of greater than 0.5 fit well in the construct with other variables (Eze et al., 2018). Furthermore, with the KMO value of 0.869 which is above the cut-off score of 0.50 (Field, 2005; Hair et al., 2010) and the Bartlett test with a chi-square value of 5006.914, df=820, and p-value of 0.000 (see Table 2), it can be said that the variables are suitable and adequate for factor analysis.
4.2.1 Factor analysis: Principal componentanalysis (PCA) and factor extraction
Through the utilization of principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation as the method of extraction, the factor analysis was executed. Six factors were extracted with eigenvalues of greater than 1.0, based on the Total Variance Explained (TVE). The 6 factors extracted accounts for over 50% of the total cumulative variance. This is in line with the proposal from previous studies (Hair et al., 2010; Pallant, 2007; Stern, 2010) (see table 3).
Table 3 Total Variance Explained (TVE) of barriers to lean construction Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of
Variance
Cum.
% Total % of Variance
Cum.
% Total % of Variance
Cum.
% 1 15.84 38.63 38.63 15.84 38.63 38.63 5.62 13.72 13.72
2 3.19 7.77 46.41 3.19 7.77 46.41 4.40 10.74 24.45
3 2.22 5.42 51.83 2.22 5.42 51.83 4.29 10.45 34.91
4 1.87 4.55 56.38 1.87 4.55 56.38 3.99 9.74 44.64
5 1.54 3.77 60.15 1.54 3.77 60.15 2.73 6.65 51.29
6 1.33 3.25 63.40 1.33 3.25 63.40 2.71 6.61 57.91
In the Rotated Component Matrix (RCM), table 4, only variables with a factor loading of greater than 0.50 were extracted (retained) and this is based on the (Spector, 1992) submission. The 6 major components contain items with a factor loading that explained much of the variance than the remaining components.
Nwaki et al. 73
4.2.2 Categorization and extractor factor discussion
Categorization is determined by the examination of the critical and latent characteristics of the items loading under the components. Where it is difficult to secure a befitting name for components, consideration is given to the items with the highest factor loading under the component under consideration.
In the RCM (Table 4), 8 items were loading under the first components and they account for 38.63% of the total variance explained of the extracted variables. These items are non-use of modern techniques and technologies, lack of adequate lean skills, training and education, poor knowledge of lean benefits and value, lack of adequate lean awareness and understanding, late involvement in the supply chain, improper risk assessment and management, fragmented nature of the industry, and inefficiency in the procurement process. After a critical examination of the items, the component was named ‘Technology and Knowledge barriers’. The construction industry of this day is technology-driven and knowledge is an asset of organizations. The poor utilization of technology in construction has impacted on cost and time of project delivery, thereby leading to more wastage. This is, however, against the philosophy of LC.
Table 4 Rotated Component Matrix (RCM) of lean construction barriers
Variables Component
1 2 3 4 5 6
Non-use of modern techniques and technologies
0.77
4
Lack of adequate lean skills, training and education
0.74
1
Poor knowledge of lean benefits and value
0.69
4
Lack of adequate Lean awareness and understanding
0.67
0
Late involvement in the supply chain
0.57
6
Improper risk assessment and management
0.53
9
Fragmented nature of the industry
0.52
7
Inefficiency in the procurement process
0.50
4
Lack of client and consultant engagement in lean construction 0.74
5
Lack of long term relationship with suppliers 0.72
8
Weak connection between clients, consultants and contractors 0.69
3
Waste accepted as inevitable 0.59
5
Long time required to implement lean practices 0.54
9
Organizational culture and employees attitude 0.80
3
Complexity of lean construction process 0.77
5
Resistance, unwillingness to change the existing culture 0.62
5
Lack of good policies 0.59
3
Failure in operational excellence 0.53
0
74 Major Barriers Assessment of Lean Construction Application in Construction Projects Delivery
Poor leadership and management skills 0.84
5
Absence of management commitment and support 0.72
1
Misperception about Lean practices 0.62
9
Inefficient use of quality materials 0.60
4
Lack of motivation and incentives 0.57
8
Lack of cooperation from employees 0.57
4
Absence of employees skill and expertise 0.56
9
Poor communication among stakeholders 0.69
6
Lack of information sharing and integrated change control 0.60
4
Roles and responsibilities not defined 0.55
9
Financial capability and implementation cost 0.65
4
Reactive and lack of proactive improvement actions 0.73
2
Limited knowledge of the lean concept 0.71
7
Complexity of the construction industry 0.51
5
LC implementation in the construction industry of most nations has suffered a serious setback because of a lack of the basic skills, education, and training on the concepts. Training and education improve knowledge such as awareness and understanding, knowledge of benefits of lean, among others. This is well documented in the extant construction management literature (Shakil Ahmed et al., 2020; Shakil Ahmed & Sobuz, 2019; Allu & Emuze, 2018; A. Bashir et al., 2010; A. M. Bashir et al., 2015; Moradlou & Perera, 2017; Movaghar, 2016; Oguntona et al., 2019; Oke et al., 2021; S. Sarhan & Fox, 2013)
The adoption level of modern technologies that accelerate construction work and enhance communication is low, and this impedes the communication of LC techniques (Shakil Ahmed et al., 2020). Lack of the basic skills and knowledge on how to use modern technological tools like BIM is a challenge that impacts the successful application of lean principles (J. Sarhan et al., 2018). Zhang et al. (2018) found that BIM which is an innovative technology can be utilized to enhance project performance. BIM helps to detect clashes that can result to rework, thus, eliminating wastages in construction materials, time and cost. The adoptions of LC principles using computer simulation have been found to reduce different types of waste (Nikakhtar et al., 2015). One of the most critical barriers to LC is poor awareness and understanding, and poor knowledge of the benefits and value of the concept (Allu & Emuze, 2018; S. Sarhan & Fox, 2013). According to Ahmed and Sobuz (2019), technological and knowledge barriers were some of the barriers to LC implementation that requires adequate focus towards eliminating because of the level of impact they have on LC application on construction projects.
The second component has 5 items and accounts for about 7.77% of the total variance explained.
After an examination of the variables loaded under this component, it was named ‘Engagement and relationship barriers’. The component is comprised of lack of client and consultant engagement in LC, lack of long-term relationship with suppliers, weak connection between clients, consultants, and contractors, waste accepted as inevitable and long time required
Nwaki et al. 75 implementing lean practices. Stakeholders’ engagement and relationship issues hinder the implementation of LC practice on construction projects. The implementation of innovative construction management techniques like the lean concept requires the buy-in of all stakeholders and a smooth relationship.
The engagement and relationship barrier reported in this study is in line with the findings of (Shakil Ahmed & Sobuz, 2019; Kanafani, 2015). Kanafani (2015) found that lack of client and consultant engagement in LC is stakeholders’ barrier to lean concept. Stakeholder communication and relationship was identified by Ahmed and Sobuz (2019) are barriers to LC.
When stakeholders are properly engaged, they will get details of what they are up against. Proper engagement of project stakeholders and good working relationships are a panacea for effective information sharing and smooth workings toward the delivery of construction projects. Ahmed et al. (
